<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (9) TMI 722 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313054</link>
    <description>The contractual bar on claims for variation, interest and consequential reliefs was given effect by reading the general conditions with the special conditions, which expressly overrode any conflicting terms. Claims arising from variation in contract value were treated as outside arbitral reference because the contract said no such claim or compensation would be entertained. The interest claim was also barred because the contract provided that no interest would be payable on amounts due under it. Claims for profit, mental agony, harassment and litigation charges, being consequential to the barred claims, were held not to survive independently for reference, and no arbitrator was appointed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:42:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 722 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313054</link>
      <description>The contractual bar on claims for variation, interest and consequential reliefs was given effect by reading the general conditions with the special conditions, which expressly overrode any conflicting terms. Claims arising from variation in contract value were treated as outside arbitral reference because the contract said no such claim or compensation would be entertained. The interest claim was also barred because the contract provided that no interest would be payable on amounts due under it. Claims for profit, mental agony, harassment and litigation charges, being consequential to the barred claims, were held not to survive independently for reference, and no arbitrator was appointed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>